5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in St Petersburg.
6.  On 17 December 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with aggravated robbery with the use of firearms. It appears that during those proceedings the applicant’s involvement in the offence was established, but he absconded.
7.  By a decision of 7 September 2000 the investigator in charge brought formal charges against the applicant and ordered his arrest. He was put on the federal wanted list on 11 September 2000.
8.  On 12 September 2000 the authorities disjoined the criminal case against the applicant from the main set of criminal proceeding, and then on 12 November 2000 suspended the investigation pending the search for the applicant.
9.  On 5 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. The investigation in the criminal case against the applicant was resumed the following day. On 6 November 2001 the materials of the criminal case against the applicant were sent to the St Petersburg City Court for trial.
10.  In a judgment of 8 February 2005 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and robbery and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
11.  According to the applicant, although he did not offer any resistance during his arrest on 5 July 2001, police officers forced him to lie face down on the ground, handcuffed him and beat him. In particular, they hit him with a heavy object, presumably a pistol handle, on the back of his head so that he started bleeding, and beat him in the kidney area.
12.  In the applicant’s submission, he spent a night in a corridor of a police station of the St Petersburg Department for the Fight against Organised Crime, handcuffed to a radiator in a squatting position and in the absence of any facilities enabling him to rest. At least three times during that night he was taken for interviews to various offices where police officers questioned and beat him, forcing him to confess to offences which had apparently been imputed to him.
13.  On 6 July 2001 the applicant was taken to an investigator’s office, formally charged with aggravated robbery, and questioned.
14.  According to the Government, on the same date the investigator in charge, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, drew up a report on the examination of the applicant. The relevant report attested to the presence of abrasions on the back of the applicant’s head and his back and stated that the applicant had explained that “[he] had sustained those injuries on 5 July 2001, as he had fallen during his arrest”. It can be ascertained from the report that one of the attesting witnesses was the police officer who had effected the applicant’s arrest.
15.  The applicant then wrote an explanatory note in which he stated that he had sustained the aforementioned injuries because he had fallen during his arrest on 5 July 2001, and that he had no complaints against the police officers. According to the applicant, he was forced to write that explanation.
16.  The applicant was then transferred to a temporary isolation ward where he was examined by a paramedic. As can be seen from a letter from the administration of the temporary isolation ward dated 5 June 2003, the paramedic established during that examination that the applicant had abrasions on his back and the back of his head and that he had made no complaints concerning his health. According to the applicant, the paramedic’s report in which he had described the applicant’s injuries later disappeared from the applicant’s file.
17.  On the basis of the results of the aforementioned examination, the applicant was taken to a trauma centre. There he was issued with an injured person’s card (карточка травматика) indicating that he had no complaints and that he denied having sustained any injuries. The card further stated that the applicant had no visible injuries and no need of any medical treatment. According to the applicant, he was not in fact examined by the doctor, the latter having issued the card under pressure from the police officers who had escorted the applicant to the centre.
18.  The applicant was returned to the temporary isolation ward and, according to him, on 16 July 2001 he was transferred to another detention facility.
19.  During the trial, on 7 February 2003, the applicant complained before the St Petersburg City Court that he had been ill-treated at the moment of his arrest. On 28 March 2003 the court ordered an investigation into his allegations. In the same decision the court extended the term of the applicant’s remand in custody for three months, until 30 June 2003.
20.  Following an internal inquiry, on 14 May 2003 the St Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. The decision referred in particular to statements by the investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case, who had indicated that on 6 July 2001 he had questioned the applicant as an accused and the applicant had read and signed a transcript of the interview. An arrest warrant had been served on the applicant and he had been sent to a temporary isolation ward where he had undergone a medical examination which had established that he had had a haematoma on the back of his head. Regarding the haematoma, the applicant had explained that he had sustained that injury in a fall some time before the arrest and that he had no complaints against the police officers. The investigator in charge had also stated that during the interview he had not seen any visible injuries on the applicant, and that in the course of the preliminary investigation neither the applicant nor his lawyer had lodged any complaints regarding the use of any illegal methods by any officers of the law-enforcement agencies. The decision further referred to statements of three police officers who had effected the applicant’s arrest. The statements were similar to those of the investigator in charge. The officers had confirmed that they had forced the applicant to lie on the ground and handcuffed him, stating that it had been rendered necessary by the applicant’s conduct as he had made a sudden move when he was told he was under arrest. However, they had denied that they had used any unlawful violence on the applicant and had indicated that they had not known how the applicant had sustained an injury to the back of his head, which had been established during an examination upon his arrival to the temporary isolation ward. The decision thus concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded.
21.  The applicant and his defence counsel challenged the decision of 14 May 2003 before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). They pointed in particular to the discrepancy between the medical record attesting to the presence of abrasions on the back of the applicant’s head and his back, which had been drawn up in the temporary isolation ward, and the medical record drawn up by the trauma centre which stated that the applicant had had no visible injuries. The applicant and his lawyer thus insisted that the internal inquiry had not been full and objective. They also indicated that during the preliminary investigation in the applicant’s case he had not lodged any complaints of ill-treatment out of fear for his security, as he had constantly been threatened by police officers.
22.  On 20 January 2004 the District Court rejected the above complaint, stating that the decision of 14 May 2003 had been lawful and well-founded and provided convincing reasons for the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints. The applicant’s allegations had been investigated fully and in detail and had proved unfounded.
23.  The applicant appealed. He complained that the inquiry into his allegations could not be regarded as objective as it had been confined to interviewing the officers of the law-enforcement agencies against whom he had made his allegations. He also complained that his argument concerning the discrepancy between the medical record drawn up in the temporary isolation ward and the one drawn up in the trauma centre remained unexamined.
24.  On 31 March 2004 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance decision on appeal. The court rejected as unfounded the applicant’s complaint that only the officers against whom he had made his allegations had been questioned during the inquiry. In this connection the court noted that the materials of the inquiry included the injured patient’s card of 6 July 2001, which stated that the applicant had not complained of any injuries and had no visible injuries. Also, when he had been admitted to the temporary isolation ward the applicant was examined by a paramedic, who had identified abrasions on his back and the back of his head; however, the applicant had not made any complaints concerning his health. The court further noted that during the inquiry the investigator in charge and the police officers who had arrested the applicant had been questioned and had given explanations which were relied on in the decision of 14 May 2003. It concluded that the first-instance court had thoroughly examined the materials of the inquiry and had given a well-reasoned decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 14 May 2003.
25.  On an unspecified date, the applicant also challenged in court the warrant for his arrest which was issued by an investigator on 7 September 2000 and approved by a prosecutor on 12 September 2000. The applicant alleged that although his arrest had been duly authorised and the warrant in itself conformed to formal requirements, he had not been notified of this document in due time. He explained in particular that whilst he had been arrested on 5 July 2001, the arrest warrant indicated that it had been served on him a day earlier, on 4 July 2001. The applicant was also unsure whether the signature attesting that the document had been served on him, was his own. He insisted that he had not been shown the warrant until much later and that therefore he had been deprived of the opportunity to challenge it in time.
26.  By a decision dated 1 July 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s complaint. On 19 October 2004 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal on the ground that it was dated 1 July 2004 whereas the first-instance court had in fact examined the applicant’s complaint on 2 July 2004.
27.  During a fresh examination which took place in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and the prosecution, in a decision of 25 November 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court again rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the applicant had been arrested on 5 July 2001, as could be seen from the relevant report; however, procedural documents, such as the investigator’s decision by which the applicant was accused of the criminal offences, had been served on him on 6 July 2001 and it was on this latter date that the applicant had signed them. The court further relied on the applicant’s statements that he had not signed any documents before his arrest on 5 July 2001 and that on 6 July 2001 he had signed a number of documents during his interview. In this connection the court noted that it could not be excluded that the applicant had signed the warrant himself, having mistakenly put the date of 4 July 2001. The court concluded that the arrest warrant of 7 September 2000 had been lawful, as it had been duly issued by the investigator in charge and approved by a prosecutor on 12 September 2000, and that therefore the applicant’s complaints should not be allowed.
28.  By an interlocutory decision of 21 January 2005 the St Petersburg City Court scheduled an examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 November 2004 for 8 February 2005. The decision of 21 January 2005 included a note stating that a letter informing the applicant of the date of the examination of his appeal had been sent to the detention centre where he was being kept at that time, and that the applicant’s lawyer had been apprised of the date of the examination in person. There is no indication in the decision as to whether the applicant received the aforementioned letter. The applicant’s lawyer has also not confirmed whether he was indeed informed of the date in question.
29.  On 8 February 2005 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 25 November 2004 on appeal. The court stated, in particular, that all the arguments advanced by the applicant in his appeal had already been thoroughly examined by the first-instance court and rejected in a reasoned decision.
30.  Neither the applicant nor his lawyer attended the hearing before the appellate court, whereas the prosecutor was present and requested that the decision of 25 November 2004 be upheld on appeal. According to the applicant, he received the decision of 8 February 2005 on 11 February 2005.